Xequecal wrote:
Vindicarre wrote:
More expensive how?
More invasive than being physically groped at random?
More invasive than going through a body scanner that has the stated purpose of seeing through your clothes?
Feel less safe how? I know I'd feel much less safe if water bottles were allowed on planes, not to mention cupcakes and baby rattles.
The more intrusive and annoying it is, the safer the average person feels. That's how it works. People believe that the fact that they have to wait two hours in a security line means the TSA MUST be doing a great job checking out everyone - why else would it take so long?
Xequecal wrote:
Safety measures that would actually work are far too invasive and expensive, and in a lot of cases would actually make people feel less safe.
I don't get it. If they're more invasive they would actually work, but people would feel less safe because they need to be more invasive for people to feel safe?
Xequecal wrote:
The "expensive" measures are the ones that are both public and effective, like searching every single bag, or patting down every single passenger.
As was stated before, every bag is searched now. Patting down every single passenger wouldn't be more effective than alternative methods, and it wouldn't even need to be more expensive. The Gov't would just tell people to show up three hours before their flight so the double plus good "freedom pats" could be performed before entering the "liberty lobby" prior to boarding the "patriot plane".
Hopwin wrote:
Taly, did you miss the 120+ piece collection of weapons I posted above? All of those would have been on a plane (including the dynamite) without the TSA. I appreciate people don't like the intrusion but it is a balance.
What I see are sets of kitchen knives, a hammer, a brulee torch, a bunch of toy guns (complete with day-glo orange tips), pocket knives and an inert chrome plated decorative paperweight shaped like an antiquated WWII Mk2 grenade...oh, and a bunch of neat-o "ninja" kubotans. Much like the TSA's "Top Ten", the fact that they are highlighting these "catches" as their "showpiece" examples is pretty telling. Further, I really don't see how those items would be found due to the "enhanced security methods" in place while they wouldn't be found with the more traditional methods of x-ray.
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Talya wrote:
What we want to follow is their unrelated example of airport security -- where, incidentally, they treat people with MORE respect and give greater accommodation to their rights than we do here.
El Al has a security budget of $80 million. (2007) (
http://nexus.umn.edu/Courses/Cases/CE5212/F2007/CS1/CS1-report.pdf)
El Al has approximately 2 million passengers. (2008) (
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/aviation-security-and-the-israeli-model/#more-27215)
This equates to $40/passenger.
TSA's budget at the same time (same report) was ~$6 billion. In 2008, there were 810 million passengers in the US. (
http://www.numberof.net/number-of-airline-passengers-per-year/). That's $7.41/passenger. At $40/passenger, we would need to increase TSA's budget by more than 5 times. Not to mention, redesign our airports.
So, privatize it and let airlines increase ticket prices by $40.
_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Gotta protect the flying public from the hideous danger of dessert serving sets.
